Featured

To Be Good.

An important question asking whether is there any benefits for cooperative behaviors in an amoral society filled with selfish self-interested individuals, permeates the various disciplines in the study of human behavior; in Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology and Economics. Through my study of human personalities using Jungian Cognitive Functions as well as Enneagram type models which explains ways of thinking, the different motivators and fears of people that govern their actions, it holds true that everyone is a self-interested asshole, it just depends on what do they seek. 

So does this mean that the game of life is a game of who is the greatest assholes of them all? Frankly, the source of my unhappiness and disillusionment lied in my belief that the whole world is cold and superficial and that everyone chases their own self-interests hence why they like people who are similar to them, shunned people of low value and seek those with high perceived value, especially in cases of widespread hypergamy in mate-selection and as well as day to day friendships. I am no different. While the undeniable fact is that everyone are self-interested, are there any good left to be found in man? 

In the preface of the book written by Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power, he said “If the world is like a giant scheming court and we are trapped inside it, there is no use in trying to opt out of the game. It renders you powerless and powerlessness will make you miserable. Rather be an artist, than a denier or a bungler.” It is important not to deny that the existence of power exists. If you want to do well in the game, you can’t throw away the rulebook. Being yourself is a lie. You can’t be yourself and afford to win and those people who play the game compared to you who don’t, you’ll lose. If you do not play the game, you better be well prepared to get hurt. I can’t remember the specific quote but it is said that a man’s true intentions can be discovered when he is in a position of power. Conventional sayings says that power corrupts men but I view power as an enabler and is essentially amoral. People use power to compel people to their objectives or the objectives of the group. The bright side is that though everyone chases their self-interest and that they can use power to gain in expense of others or for the sake of it, many forget the power and benefits of reciprocation which is prominent in everyone, well except for 1% of the population who are psycho and sociopaths. If you want to recognise them, go and study DSM-5.

Reciprocity allows of continuing relationships and exchanges. In essence, human relations are a transaction. On hearing, the naive would immediately scorn this thought. Well if they come across individuals who are of a lower perceived social-value compared to them, I wonder how many will in actuality be friends and to get to know them at a personal level? I doubt the number will be high. Well, not trying to change those people, they do themselves and as Nietzsche said, there are two kinds of people, those who want to know and those who want to believe. Many research have concluded that the power of reciprocation is strong and evident in every culture. You can read up more about the Dennis Reagan’s 1971 Soda Study. 

On Axelrod’s two tournaments and the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma, a book “The Evolution of Cooperation” written on why “TIT FOR TAT” strategy is so dominant . Ironically in the game between two individuals who always practices TIT FOR TAT, he either loses if the game results in constant defection (since the defecting player always defects one move ahead compared to the TIT FOR TAT player), or to draw in cooperation. In the game of two individuals, it is never about winning the other individual, yet those who seek to win and step onto others, defecting and winning out in the short run, will never beat TIT FOR TAT strategy in the long run. As in the long run, mutual cooperation always yield better returns than mutual defection or trying to manipulate and gain at others expense in the short run. The key for “TIT FOR TAT” as Axelrod states is that it is clear, retaliative and forgiving. 

Men are animals, it’s an undeniable fact. What works for animals, work for humans too. In the field of behavioral psychology, there is a theory that was brought forth by B.F. Skinner called Operant Conditioning. 

Relevance from 2:25 onwards. 

In operant conditioning, there are two components, reinforcement and punishment. You increase a positive behaviour with a reinforcement such as giving a positive stimuli and punish bad behaviour with a negative punishment. Operant conditioning have strong links with game theory in Economics in firm’s decisions as that threats have to be credible to be effective. It worked with dogs, why can’t humans be trained with the same?

Likewise in life, my stance of living is towards the strategy of “forgiving tit-for-tat” and the fundamental reasons of why I’m so interested in Social sciences is for me to identify good people in my life and invest in them. Investment in the right people will only give you returns as they always reciprocate or even give you more. People who practice Tit-for Tat strategies tend to do well in the future, and knowing them early on paves the future of me knowing them which aids to my personal success. There is incentives for everyone to cooperate. A basic persuasive move is to always give before you receive, but only so few practice. 

Though I believed myself to be an amoralist, i believed that rationality has its own form of morality. Contrary, I viewed that people who prides themselves as upholding high morals tend to be hypocrites and I have seen many. Those who are indeed ‘good’ do not comment themselves as good. Through true introspection and reflection makes one healthy and good, as one consciously knows one selves good and bad and then consciously choose not their “shadow” self, “who looks outside dreams, who looks inside awakes. You are what you do not what you say you’ll do” – Carl Jung. Those who truly have a depth of understanding of themselves, will understand that themselves have the capacity to do bad but consciously avoids doing so. Those who do understand this, will never pride themselves as “good.” Words are powerful and can create great lies but actions speaks for intentions and truth. Let actions speak for themselves and persuade themselves. If words are used as a medium of persuasion, you know that their intentions are clearly wrong. As the 48 Laws of power preface states the supposed non-players in the game of power are a)Those who show or display innocence are the the least innocent of all and b) they flaunt their moral qualities, their piety, their exquisite sense of Justice and they greatly resent any publicising of the tactics they use everyday. If you are, i know who you are.  

I only have limited time, money and emotional currency to be invested in people. In fair weather days, you’ll have many friends but true friends stick through the test of time. At bad weather, will you truly know who’s really there for you at times when you have nothing to offer to them. For these people, keep them and they will be your assets. For the meek, learn to be harsh on those who seek to trample you. To end off, there’s a quote by Machiavelli which rings well with this post: 

In essence, set the standard and be clear unto others that you reward the good people and punish the bad harshly, yet also be forgiving on others when they prove themselves they want to make amends or to cooperate. Admittingly, we are all humans and we make mistakes, and I as well. Sometimes, I act in an irrational way even though how rational I seek to be. It is my regret that I have always been ungrateful and been too selfish, not spending and investing the quality time with those people who are nice to me. I hope that this aspect is something I will change in the future. 

Hard for me, I know cause I still kinda hate people. I’m CYnical afterall.

Featured

Personal: My Shadow

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. Your visions will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. You are what you do, not what you say you’ll do. Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”  ― Carl Gustav Jung.

The shadow is one of the most interesting component of Carl Jung’s theory and an important proponent towards my journey of self-realisation and understanding.

February 2019, was an especially tough period for me. I did badly for my exam and on that day, I broke up with my then-girlfriend. Blind sighted by emotions, I failed to look within and reflect. During those 4 months that I have been with her, self-centered that I am, I held onto the belief that I have placed more effort than her in the relationship while I expected tangible reciprocations or gifts from her. Did I give too much, and at the expense not receiving enough from her tangibly that ruined the relationship? Maybe. Did she lacked effort in the relationship? Perhaps. But then again, it is easy to place the blame on another for the cause of everything that went wrong. Can I ever say that I did nothing wrong? No. Contrary, I did more wrong than her. Only a month later, do I realize my transgression. By escaping from my shadow, I was projecting it on her. She became the strawman of my criticisms. I was too critical of everything, because of my internal self-hatred towards myself. I was the instigator and the problem in the relationship. Calling her a hypocrite, a paradox, when in fact I am the one calling the kettle black.

“People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to avoid facing their own souls.” 
― Carl Gustav Jung

According to Riso-Hudson Enneagram theory, I’m a type 3 (The Achiever) with a wing 4. This personality type is a paradox itself. Self-assured, confident but easily depressed? Ego is just a front to hide the insecurity inside.

An excerpt from http://www.enneagramokc.com/the-basics/the-heart-or-feeling-center/#triad :

” The Three is the most disconnected from the Heart Center and both over- and under-expresses the energy. They experience the loss of connection with the Heart as a verdict that their true nature is valueless. There’s a sense of being empty on the inside and so Ego constructs a house of cards to cover up this perceived lack of value—from the world and themselves. They over-express the Heart energy in a projection of a valuable self to the external world, and they under-express by compartmentalizing their emotional life so that they can get on with “becoming” this more valuable self. They do experience their emotions, they are indeed very sensitive people for the most part. But they don’t allow their emotions to get in the way of their performance. This causes the Three to avoid looking within, and depending on the Level of Health, Threes also avoid getting too close in relationships because they don’t want anyone else looking in there, either. “

This is who I am. Terrified of failure, terrified of myself not reaching my fullest potential. To lead a redundant life, among the masses. Unwilling to confront my shadow, I ran away from realizing myself. I see relationships as transactional, I only approach people who I deemed as valuable, for gain, because I find myself of little value.

As I gaze into the eyes of my then girlfriend, J, I see myself in her. I hated myself, I hated my past. Fantasy is not reality. Weakness is not strength. No one is kind. The world is harsh and if everyone is selfish, I must at least make myself get ahead. In the world where everyone’s leading by egoism, I must be the biggest egoist of them all. Study the social sciences to exploit, to use every means possible to get ahead, to attain my goals. Life is a game. The only way to do well is to learn it’s rules and find loopholes.

But within, truly do I understand how hard is it for emotionally sensitive people to live in this world. Behind my facade, I am a sensitive individual. Being emotional doesn’t help especially as a guy, I learnt that in my early years. I hate it. I was bullied. I had low self-esteem. I didn’t think I will go far with who I am, being sensitive and weak. I resort to getting a script and relied on drugs. I was high in neuroticism, artificially I made it low through antidepressants. Lack motivation? Stimulant’s the answer. In every scenario, be it in personal or in work relations, the less one is emotionally invested, the more authority he holds. Ain’t that sad?But’s it’s okay, as long as I attain my goals and am conventionally successful is all that it matters, according to societal definition of what successful even means.

My friend told me that I frequently like to stand on the moral high ground against others. Because of the regret and self-hatred I have for myself, i project and impose it on others, failing to place the same judgement to myself.

Been hazed by the reality of life, during my relationship with her, I thought that I have something to teach her, to develop her to be a more rational, grounded person. Those ideals that she have, I pointed her contradictions. I complained, I criticised. I thought that I was doing her a favour, to teach her, to ground her. There exists no fantasies, tangible reality is all it matters. Question everything, everyone. During the time we broke up, she said that I tore down everything that she hold, her values. I believed that a good relationship is where we criticised each other to grow. But what I did was perhaps wrong and what I did could be akin to abuse.

The only thing I could do is to perhaps say sorry.

Sorry, J. For hurting you.

It takes being rich, to be kind. It takes being sufficient, to be a giver. Life is worse with too much choices, as it becomes necessary to wade through bad choices, and to know present choices are not enough and to want more, which breeds dissatisfaction and arrogance. The principal seek to exploit our human factor. To sell us the inhuman ideal, to constantly doubt our worth to sell us products and entrap us. Like the wolf laying its eyes on the sicked young lamb, for having the common human idea for self-improvement but too ‘weak’ to realise one can’t buy “improvements.” Beauty products that will never make you pretty. Yet for all that’s worth, seek to maximise his own gains while minimising our dues. If the principal can pay zero, he will. “Never pay more than necessary.” Capitalism claims growth. But truthfully, only seek to extract. Rich do not become rich by giving but by extracting value, and doing so reduces the common folk to simply a cog of his production, a machine free for him to replace and exploit. Rich people who don’t give are the worst kinds of assholes. Poor people who gives freely are the society’s hidden treasures. Giving takes sacrifices.

Loneliness

I’m sad, right now. Why do I feel so lonely? I just spend time with my dear friends, friends who have talked about me when i’m not around, that cared, that missed me, in the afternoon. I just ate dinner with my boss who enjoyed my work and complimented me. Why do I feel so disjointed from my thoughts and my body? No one understands me.. There are better things that I could be doing. Right now, I just want to go back, be alone. I’m stupid, why am i thinking this way? My brain is in a jumble, i need to sort my thoughts. Perhaps, maybe I just want to be unhappy. Humans are never good at being happy anyways. I just want to be alone. No one understands me the same depth as I do. The things others talked about, never interests me. The advice people tell me, I have already thought about it. Sometimes, maybe, if I go too deep, I just realized there is no one there. It’s okay. I’m ugly and stupid. Better to seek solace in being alone.. I’m alone. I feel better. No need to keep up appearances..

I feel so lonely.

I want connection.. Is there anyone who cares?

Hi, wana get lunch?

wana study?

no replies.

busy.

probably thinking, WIERDO.

if i’m better looking, richer, fitter, more charismatic, would people ignore me?

am i just so unlikeable? do i have no value?

if i had value, people would not ignore me.

what can i do? what else can i change?

tell me. criticise me.

no need for feelings. I can use pills to suppress them.

tell me so I can write myself a guidebook and i will follow it.

but if i do, will i lose myself?

Meditations

“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, and also the nature of the culprit himself, who is my brother (not in the physical sense, but as a fellow creature similarly endowed with reason and a share of the divine); therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading. Neither can I be angry with my brother or fall foul of him; for he and I were born to work together, like a man’s two hands, feet or eyelids, or the upper and lower rows of his teeth. To obstruct each other is against Nature’s law – and what is irritation or aversion but a form of obstruction.”

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

What is happiness?

Does money give happiness?

Does success bring happiness?

Or does beauty bring happiness?

If so, no rich, successful, beautiful people, considered perfect by society should be depressed and unhappy. But they do.

Money gives freedom, and a free man is happier than one who isn’t free.

“Man are born free, but everywhere in chains, those who think that they are masters over others, are no greater slaves than they.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

A penniless man controls not the food he eat, the life he leads but a slave to his finances, his reputation of being poor and bound not through personal actions and words but towards societal definition of himself. How sad is one to lead a life without autonomy and the ability to define who “I am?”

Capital society dehumanised us, to merely a factor of production. The estrangement of man being merely a dispensable mechanism in the economy detaches us from our identity. The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, wrote that the division of labor can leave man ‘mentally mutilated.’ Karl Marx wrote about ‘Entfremdung’ and how work today alienates the common of his creative work, our creation that serves as a representation and extension of self. In modern day capitalism, social media and society have brainwashed the population that ‘tokens’ are the means to happiness, and many follow this doxa. But money only gives freedom, a mean to happiness and not happiness itself. It gives the longing man opportunity for self-actualization. It can bring meaning and purpose to the limited time that we have or we can waste it on material gains that we buy and wear on for the sake of a few seconds of admiration but costs us a lifetime of subservience to the mask we wore ourselves as we drift away from who we really are. Such a life of utter meaninglessness.

Rule 7 of Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules of life state:

Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient.

To find and work on your Raison D’être, is the greatest Eudaimonia that gives happiness in life. But that’s life’s greatest obstacle, that is to find our purpose which give us the greatest fulfilment. It’s uncomfortable, its hard and buying into societal view of ‘success’ is an easy way out. An out that many will choose, and I’m no exception. We are all slaves and unhappy until we find ourselves and our place in this world. And I’m still finding mine.

End of the day, a life well-lived is one without regrets. Perhaps, we already know what we want to do but we forgot that we become more resentful each time we stop acting upon it. Because it’s not just society that’s stopping us but ourselves. I have always thought that if I do not achieve what I seek out to do, It is because I’m not working or want it hard enough. If I do not give up my hobbies, food, health, I’m not working hard enough. If it’s still not enough, I’m not sacrificing enough. To gain something, is to sacrifice something else. You gain some, you lose some, life isn’t perfect that you can have everything. But what for living, if I do not become what I want myself to be? Deep inside, I have this opinion where many are not working hard enough to achieve what they want, because that’s how I view myself all the time. But in the midst of striving to become who I want to be, will such sacrifices lead to happiness? Other interpretations of happiness is about self-contentment. If I’m not happy now, how will I be sure that I will be in the future? Will anything ever be enough?

While some days, I just want fuck all this and just migrate to some scenic place in maybe Europe and be a fisherman.

Is Neediness such a bad thing?

When a guy claims a girl of being needy, is it really that or rather the guy is ‘lazy’ to handle relationships?

While searching for criticisms for Rousseau’s attribution of man’s desires (or perfectibility) as the fundamental problem behind the downfall of morality in modern civilisation, I chanced upon this quote:

“Need is not the mother of vice, it is impetus to activity and virtue. The source of vice is laziness (Tragheit), to enjoy just as much pleasure and to do as little as possible.” (Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Early Philosophical Writing, Pg. 183)

This spurred a whole debate in my head on a wholly different context. How could this be applicable to real world scenario? Is being needy such a bad thing in by itself? I actually disagree. Being needy is to be in love, to be attracted to another, to desire affection from your partner, an embodiment of the virtue of love. Problems come not with neediness but rather being lazy.

Don’t people find it paradoxical that everyone wants to be loved, but hate being demanded of their time and affection? Everyone wants love when it is convenient to them but human affairs are by itself is the contrary.

“Humane affairs cannot be without some inconvenience.” – Hobbes on Leviathan.

When a person claimed the other as being needy, truthfully it can only be translated as: “You are just not worth it of my time and energy.” Problem stemmed not the other being needy, but rather one has not found someone worth sacrificing for. You gain some, you lose some to be with someone. One can’t have everything, but having that one person can become my everything.

The death of most relationships are unspeakably the lack of effort. Most successful relationships hinges on the effort of both sides. If being needy which meant desiring for affection is bad, then why the lack of desire also the impediment of successful relationships?

Thank you. I’m moving on.

I always thought there was

Something romantic about fighting

For someone,

About winning them back,

Eventual happiness,

But as I sit here with stones in

My chest,

Where hope used to lie,

I have come to realise that there’s

Nothing lovely about having to

Continuously convince some one to

Love you.

I only understood it now,

When you made me

Stood there waiting tonight,

In silly anticipation for

Someone who truly loves me.

Thoughts: Rousseau’s General Will.

Rousseau’s goal in his political theory was to seek to reconcile political rule and individual liberty, claiming that naturalized modern society with property rights are the basis of moral inequality and hence the reason of man’s freedom as those with rights created laws to alienate those who don’t; “Man are born free, but everywhere he is in chains.” (The Social Contract, Book 1, Chapter 1). The only solution for moral inequality is through an exchange contract whereby men give up their natural right for political right. By doing so, men exchange their private will, giving up personal inclinations, to take on will of the common good, coined by Rousseau as the general will.

Rousseau’s conception of freedom can be interpreted as a status. The free person exercises self-autonomy and initiates his own actions wherein the slave follows the decree of his master. By following self-prescribed law, are man truly free; “they are not enslaved but free, because they are not obeying someones else’s will but obeying self-prescribed law” (The Social Contract, Book 1, Chapter 1).

Most notably brought up by Isaiah Berlin, it is important to note between the two concepts of liberty. Positive liberty is defined as the freedom to achieve one’s goals and act on one’s free will while negative liberty is defined as the freedom from external interference. By this definition, both concepts are rival and incompatible interpretations of liberty, and Rousseau’s theory likewise failed to reconcile them. The freedom to achieve one’s own goals and the freedom from external interference can sometimes be at odds with the other. Like Rousseau’s general will, positive liberty is viewed as attainable through means such as collectivism. Positive concept of liberty has drawbacks such as it being a precursor to totalitarianism.

In the structural sense, the general will is riddled with issues. The general will is perceived to be the most enlightened form of will, which is the will for the common good, but not the will of a specific interest group. The general will has to apply to all the same, which meant that people holding different occupations and ways of life are subjected to the same code and law, agreed upon by the general will, through direct democracy. The establishment of those laws is problematic. As mentioned, the general will is not the will of the majority, how then the laws be decided upon? Rousseau took to believe that through direct democracy, where every citizen congregate together, the will of all will miraculously converge into the general will. Once the general will is established, Rousseau claimed that it can never be wrong and to oppose it would be irrational, and should be imposed sanctions and be “forced to be free.”

Realistically, it is almost impossible for opinions not to be swayed by majority rule. Even if characterized by majority rule, citizens might be said to be free on grounds of self-autonomy but if they are oppressed then it must be that they are not free. By adopting an organic conception of society according which collectivism can be viewed as an organic living being, which in this case, the general will who decide affairs rationally and self-governed, even the majority are oppressed in the name of liberty. Rousseau’s theory caused a dilemma in scenarios whereby personal inclinations can go against the desires of the group. If sanctions which according to Rousseau may include death, then negative liberty is threatened, that is the freedom from external interference. The threat of death or exile hence hinders the free actions of the citizen. Rousseau focused primarily on the positive aspect of liberty by self-autonomy, and wholly undermined negative liberty.

Rousseau advocated the idea of what is good for the common is good for the individual which also cannot be the case. Diverse people from diverse backgrounds such as occupations and way of life have different needs and desires. What is decided in the assembly might not be what the true will of the majority, but could be seen as a compromise. “The general will is simply what the citizens of the state have decided together in their sovereign assembly and an alternative to.. what any of the actually wants” as argued by Bertram (Legacy in two conception of general will, pg. 403 – 420). In real world settings, there are vertical and horizontal equity in governance, in terms of welfare and treatment of it’s citizens. Rousseau focused way too heavily on ‘equal treatment of the equals’ but neglected the possibility that some might need more assistance than others in society.

Can the general will be challenged? Rousseau stance on the general will as never wrong can be interpreted as not. Rousseau’s political theory, like Plato’s theory of the states, both fall under the same criticism of “who guard the guardians?” – famously posed by satirical poet Juvenal. In Plato’s Republic, the “guardians” hold the ultimate authority, and they rely on their own virtues to maintain the state of the Republic. However, though the guardians themselves can keep the populace in order, they themselves cannot protect themselves from becoming incorruptible themselves. “The decay of states” henceforth occurs through generations, wherein according to Plato who supported Aristocracy and monarchy will decay to Timocracy, to Democracy to Tyranny. By calling the general will infallible, does this mean that once the general will is established, has absolute power over it’s citizens? Rousseau can be interpreted as merely re attributing Hobbes ideas of absolute sovereignty in the form of an abstract concept of “general will”, despite him being an critic of Hobbes theory.

Critics claiming that Rousseau’s theory is a precursor to totalitarianism, I argue that their criticisms are rightfully justified. How can Rousseau be sure that the general will will not eventually decay into ‘particular will.’ Rousseau took a dangerous stance by stating that there are more rational beings than others and that less rational men have to be forced to make rational decisions which is akin to ‘forced to be free’ to realize the good for themselves and the collective. His theory includes components such as civic education, civic religion and censorship which provides the perfect means of the social engineering of the populace. Rousseau’s sanctions towards those who do not follow the general will is a testament towards the latter. It also appear paradoxical that Rousseau also wrote that civic religion requires the provision of those that are tolerant should themselves be tolerated. By taking the view that some men are less rational than others, Berlin claimed “I am in a position to ignore the actual wishes of men or societies, to bully, to oppress, torture in the name, on behalf, of their ‘real’ selves, in the secure knowledge that whatever is the goal of man.. must be identical with his freedom.” (Two Concepts of Liberty, pg 127).

Rousseau might have well-regarded intentions to promote a solution for liberty, but his theory seemed to be an impediment of it. “Rousseau failed to realise how strongly amour propre tended to assume a collective form.. In pride of race of nationality of class” (Lovejoy, essay in the history of ideas, p. 23). His theory imposes a “with us or against us” mentality, whereby citizens are threatened to follow state ideology or risk exile and even death, this in turn violates the concept of negative liberty.